tl;dr > Should players be allowed to hide information from GMs?

I want to preface this topic by saying: thanks. Thanks GMs for bringing the grimdark world to life with it's myriad places and persona (the majority of which are trying to kill us PCs). We players appreciate your hard GM-ing work. So while it may come off as crass, believe me when I say the following comes from a good place: I don't trust a single one of you even in the slightest .

Why not? Because unbeknownst to the players, you have a labyrinthine puzzle of plots you're weaving together for the PCs' amusement. You keep us from being our own worst enemy and messing it all up. Whether we're trying to bite off more than we can chew or destroy a valuable plot item, you GMs have at least a few deus ex machina stored up your sleeve to keep us on track. And that's great, I'm not complaining, but it illustrates a point that you have the power to do anything at any time. Reigning in that power is difficult when you're only human. Consider the following:

The PCs are on the run from a group of crazed cultists led by conniving planetary governess. You've noted that at this point in the session, the governor would reveal herself during an attack on the Players, only to be driven off temporarily. You plan to send in a dozen cultists to kick things off before the governor strides in, taunts the party with the next plot hook, and departs . The Players are cornered in a dark building and the stage is set . Then one of them gets an idea: "We've got 5 minutes and a 8 frag grenades. Why don't I wire them all around the entrance with my Demolitions skill, and set them off if that mysterious leader shows up?"

There's the dilemma, my dear GMs. Do you stick with your plan, dooming your poor governess to D10 upon D10 of explosive damage, or use this new information and change your plan on the fly, simultaneously robbing the PCs of the fruits of their ingenious labour and leaving them without the essential plot-hook you had prepared?

The problem is it's hard to act impartially in these situations and feign imperfect knowledge for your NPCs. While there are a lot of quick fixes ("You find a dying cultist with a vox-caster, and recognize the maniacal laughter on the other end: it's the governess!"), these will usually involves thwarting the PCs sudden and unexpected thinking. For an example that doesn't involve derailing the plot, some Feral World PCs prepare for an orc assault by digging some pitfall traps. As the GM, you're alerted to these trap positions as the PCs roll to establish them, and must decide how to manoeuvre their savage attackers. Do you avoid the traps? Make a few token mook sacrifices while sparing the bigger baddies? If only there was a way to protect yourself from the burden of knowledge!

Introducing the Player's Screen!

Regardless of how you choose to implement it, the Player's Screen is just the concept that PCs are able to hide information from GMs to facilitate more authentic responses by NPCs. It could be as simple as hiding a characters sheet to conceal his remaining wounds and fate points, to having PCs create a hidden sketch of the battlemat you're playing on and identifying trap locations 1-5. While not necessarily a physical screen, I'm simply playing with the idea of having information hidden from the GM. I want to know if anyone has tried something similar, what GMs think about the practicalities of implementing it, what could go wrong, and so on.

Thanks in advance to everyone who contributes their two cents.

Its an interesting idea, but the key failing of it is that it at times requires that players hide rolls from the GM.

The entire notion of hiding an explosive trap fails when it comes down to the fact that at some point you have to roll a demolitions test. Informing the GM you are rolling said test immediately clues them in. Failing to inform the GM that such a roll is being made is effectively cheating; the GM cannot confirm you made that roll. Another point is that test difficulty may vary based on the situation, and only the GM can rule on the exact modifier. Informing the GM that you're making a "hidden +20 roll" simply is not enough.

On the other hand, this is a pretty nifty idea.

From my own experience as a GM, I often am nice in the sense that I do try to avoid the use of GM knowledge. Still, occasionally I will alter circumstances, especially if such an event would ultimately derail the campaign (e.g. they kill the big bad before he informs them of the even greater threat that must be faced, thus cutting the campaign needlessly short (assuming that we're talking a "no evidence" sort of kill (as one player put it "inform the enemy that we have lance weaponry") that prevents even the odd clue, without most obviously shoehorning in the next major clue)). Ultimately, this is actually a matter of the skill of the GM, and their ability to react to the players.

When thinking about it like that though, it basically turns the game into "players vs. GM" instead of "players vs. story." When put in this light, I actually rather dislike the notion of players hiding information from the GM. It is important to recognize as a player that the GM is not your enemy. They are the story teller. Yes, they may be antagonistic at times, but ultimately, they also provide the source of entertainment (i.e. the story).

Also, this could easily result in some game breaking situations. Given the frag grenade trap on the door, what if, instead of an enemy, a key NPC ally (lets say the party's inquisitor) is actually the next one to walk into the room. With information hiding in effect, they players must inform the GM that they have just vaporized the inquisitor, otherwise they are cheating and hiding information when it is beneficial to them. Without information hiding, the GM can avoid a majorly catastrophic event, and maintain "normal" play by putting off the inquisitor walking in.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the players actually need to trust their GM. And GMs need to make themselves trustworthy to their players. That way, the pain is even greater when the GM stabs the party in the back.... wait did I say that out loud?

I tend to be extremely open with my players- I roll everything out in the open, an old habit we developed with our previous Gm that I've taken to applying as well, but expect them to do it too.

I ALMOST ran into that situation last week- when the players got an idea (which I'd planned for them to have...) but wanted to apply it BEFORE I planned for them to have it! Basically, they had to drive a tank into a building to drop it onto a Daemon (One option to defeat it)... But they decided they wanted to do that... before the daemon was summoned... while the sorcerer was still preparing the ritual...

You can imagine it would have put a damper on about an hour and a half of game-play!

Luckily, I was able to reign them in a bit- but not by rail-roading at the time or denying their plan: no, they simply recalled an important fact about their inquisitor: the man likes his heretics captured alive so he can introduce them to his excruciator (He's been known to fill the empty spot with an acolyte if the latter proves too bloodthirsty by killing off potential leads before they've gotten a chance to properly confess).

As for actual, ingame mapping problems and plots- either the players will give me snip bits of information and I will accept it or not, depending on how complicated it seems. For example, one evening, two players wanted to tie two grenades together with a string. I said sure, consider it done. Later on, they surprised by having the Psyker Fling them both at a target with a single spell! It was pretty cool- and I didn't see it coming.

As for traps, I am completely and utterly impartial in that I don't meta my NPCs: If there's a landmine in the path of an NPC, he's gonna walk into it if he doesn't detect it. That Sorcerer ready to cast a spell at the first person that enters the room casts it even if the guy is an untouchable, etc etc.

I decided to have the players assume the consequences of their actions after one of them accidentally killed a plot-important npc [sneaking up to them in an alley and simply backstabbing with a two handed great-sword: tore that poor guy in half...].

So in the end of the day, its up to the GM how he handles these particular situations- I am not very good at improvising, but I was a player for a while, so I try to incorporate what I liked from when I was a player and what I've learned while balancing out whats necessary to keep the plot moving.

To get back to the main topic: I don't think players should hide any rolls from GMs, or any... overly complex plans and information that requires planning and plotting and setting up. On the other hand, I believe a GM needs to play those straight and rely on his rolls if he wants to screw over the planet. [Awareness test to detect the bombs in the way and avoid them, for example.] That way its fair and fun for everybody.

And Obviously, KommissarK was kidding! I've never back-stabbed my players by having a rough idea of what they were going to do because I knew them and played with them as a player before, and so planned things in a way as to hurt them like that one time in Gunmetal city....

Very interesting question. I think I will have to agree with the other replies above though. Sometimes players try stuff that you judge unrealistic. It is just a fact. I dislike saying no to my players but sometimes you just have to. I think it would add to the dissappointment if the point where you have to say no is after they have triumphantly revealed the super plan they came up with a few minutes ago.

It is important to have trust. I personally do not roll in front of my screen. There are occasions when I decide I need to fudge rolls. Usually it is because I have put something a little too powerful/not powerful enough in. My NPCs fail enough that I don't think my players begrudge the odd fudge, I have certainly not had complaints.

The secret trap thing could be handled a different way. Perhaps taking a leaf out of the wargaming side of things. When you have mines in many games one method is put out not only mine markers but dummy ones too. So the players would make their demolitions roll. For every degree of success on top of the first they get to place a dummy trap on the battlemap in addition to the actual ones. As the badguys come to them they make awareness checks. If successful they get to flip the token they can see. I would play it exactly the same way if the badguys have placed traps.

In short I don't think plans or rolls should ever be kept secret from the GM. Certain information could be kept secret but I don't think if you are doing it right it should be necessary. But something like the dummy token idea could potentially add to the fun.

No, the GM has to know. An RPG is not a wargame. The GM IS the metagame, the narrator, and the sum total of everything there is to know about the world except the contents of your charater's mind; you cannot expect impartiality unless you want to play a purely simulationist game (boring) or a wargame. The GM cannot cheat, it isn't about 'trusting' the GM, it is about having a good GM who understands when to fudge and it sounds like you don't.

Why would you feel cheated? The players have 'n' number of minds to come up with 'crafty plans' where the GM has one, and players usually have more time in critical situations to think things through than you would have in real life. The GM has put a lot of work into creating the game for you, and you only have to sit back and play. What if the whole campaign will come to an immediate end because five minds thought of something the GM hadn't accounted for. Is that fair? How is having all that work wasted any fun or fair for the GM?

The rules are there to support the game, do not mistake them for the game itself because it is possible to go a whole session without a dice roll and not feel 'cheated'. All good GMs fudge it when they have to and they should when the rule of cool demands it. Name of the game is to maximise fun and in a narrative game it's no fun taking the impartial path because that will result in the GM not ever saying a bad guy missed when he actaully hit, it means not letting you sneak through a gaurded spaceport because the security actually is too tight, not letting you hack the servitor becuase it has 256 bit encyption, and not letting you survive in the desert of hex where there is no water no matter how good your survival roll.

Now having said all that let me come back to the idea of a good GM. If your GM thwarts your parties good ideas all the time just because, or for just his own fun, then that's a poor GM who doesn't understand the role of GM. You don't need a player-screen for that, you need a new GM.

I think it’s an ill idea, and here is why.

The few times I had players hiding things from me (the GM) it always ended wrong with either me feeling cheated or telling them that it wasn’t possible.

Role-play should be like a movie or a good book, not a fight between the players and the GM. If the main villain gets killed by a booby trap that the players made, or the whole encounter ends because the players decides to do something else. If this happens, it is the GM responsibility to re-create the plot. He should reward the players (with experience or items) or give them an edge in the next encounter as a reward. The most important thing is to reward the players with using their idea, and use time on it.

When I write campaigns I try to take into account all the possibilities that my players would come up with. That I have played with them for over eight years’ only helps, and only in rare circumstances they surprise me. When they do I let them do it, and often call a break so I can figure out how to change it. When the players come back, I have incorporated their idea into my plot. With the example you have given I would have the governess assign a few cultist to scout duty, and let them take the damage. The scouting cultist would walk into the trap and I would use a minute on describing the explosion and how these poor cultists get blown to pieces. A few of the bricks and shrapnel would maybe wound the governess and could create a new cool terrain with smoke for the players to fight in.

So the answer is no player screen and player secret in my group. Let the players do what they want (as long as it is possible). I would just let them take a break to alter my plot line, and reward the players for good thinking, but remember to be realistic.

Hope this helps.

Much appreciated. I asked for two cents, and got about ten apiece.

I wanted to clarify the following to save future contributors the burden of defending GMs' actions, and instead address the feasibility of hidden player actions.

• I'm quite impressed with our current GM. He has received both pizza and accolades, which I believe are the obligatory offerings of appreciative players.
• I agree that GMs work to facilitate the narrative and operate in the best interests of players (while taking a few liberties to make the PCs dance to their cruel and macabre tune).
• I was never advocating hiding rolls, though I neglected to put that in my original post in an effort to keep the examples short. (I thought FFG was charging us by the word, but a very official sounding rep was happy to inform me he would accept a flat rate per post instead.)
• No, wait! Don't shoot! I've been a GM too! *Blam blam blam!* Aaaarrghhh---...*thud*

What I was actually hoping a limited amount of unknown information would do was allow the GM to avoid some mental acrobatics and behave naturally in certain combat situations. BrotherKane's mine example was a perfect illustration of what I was going for. Now the GM can choose to move some goons around the mines altogether, while having a few tempt fate by moving over possible decoys. I think that this adds to the players satisfaction and the overall fun of the game, since in a vanilla situation where the GM knows which mines are active, it will most likely feel like they're feeding minions onto active mines. This way, there's a little surprise for the GM as well, while there can be no argument about the players' rolls, the damage of the mines, or anything else. For me, BrotherKane's tentative solution not only lets the players have more fun, but lets the GM enjoy some suspense too. Our group is relatively new to DH, and I've just been looking for alternative like that one to propose.

I've had players work behind a "Player Screen" in Dungeons and Dragons. They laid out traps and ambushes and fail-safes in a very interesting manner, and for myself it worked in that scenario, mostly because I had a deus ex machina stored up my sleeve. I actually had fun too, it almost felt like I was playing too, as a DM rather than a player. Though, I will admit, I was comfortable running a free-form game in that situation.

It can be entertaining to give the players those moments when they CAN keep secrets from the GM, if only to create a more realistic reaction from the NPCs.

If you have a large group(6 or more players), having a "2nd GM" to take care of game mechanics can also help with the Player Screen idea. For example, the Narrative GM will provide the situations and scenarios as usual. The 2nd GM will take care of combat rolls, initiative, and other game mechanics. The 2nd GM may be perfectly aware of the Players plans by accounting for the "secret rolls", but the Narrative GM could have no idea. The Narrative GM plays the NPCs as he would normally, and the 2nd GM informs him legitimately about the rolls the NPCs will have to make.

Despite that idea, I prefer having more control over what happens in my campaign, I just keep my "railroads" invisible.
It basically comes down to having to choose as a GM what kind of game you want to run: Free-form or Narrative.